Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates
Thomas Lifson
May 31, 2014

The greatest scientific fraud in history is slowly but surely unraveling, and the breadth of the corruption revealed is stunning. As any good con man knows, and emotional appeal is necessary, and the warmists found their cuddly-looking icon of endangerment in the polar bear, an animal frequently chosen as stuffed toys for children to hug. Pictures of polar bears on ice floes, presumably doomed to death by drowning as the Arctic ice disappeared, were used to tug on the heartstrings of adults and children alike, in order to scare them into willingly handing over power over their economic destiny to global mandarins who would reduce their standard of living.

But it was necessary to come up with “scientific” estimates of polar bear populations that showed them in danger. With all the billions of dollars available for global warming-related research, and the level of peer pressure that money generates, it wasn’t that difficult.

Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.

Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

As with the hockey stick graph and many other elements of the concocted story, honest scientists working in the finest tradition of skeptical scientific inquiry, started to unravel fuzzy numbers and lies. One such hero is polar bear scientist Dr. Susan Crockford, who publishes the website Polar Bear Science. In it she documents how a scientist responsible for an alarmist lowball estimate of polar bear population is backing away from numbers that she has been questioning:

Quote:

Last week (May 22), I received an unsolicited email from Dr. Dag Vongraven, the current chairman of the IUCN [International Union for the Conservation of Nature – TL] Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG).

The email from Vongraven began this way:

“Dr. Crockford

Below you’ll find a footnote that will accompany a total polar bear population size range in the circumpolar polar bear action plan that we are currently drafting together with the Parties to the 1973 Agreement. This might keep you blogging for a day or two.”

It appears the PBSG have come to the realization that public outrage (or just confusion) is brewing over their global population estimates and some damage control is perhaps called for. Their solution — bury a statement of clarification within their next official missive (which I have commented upon here).

Instead of issuing a press release to clarify matters to the public immediately, Vongraven decided he would let me take care of informing the public that this global estimate may not be what it seems.

Wow! Burying the news in a footnote and letting a critic know instead of issuing a press release. That is certainly a signal. Here’s the news:

Here is the statement that the PBSG proposes to insert as a footnote in their forthcoming Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan draft:

Quote:

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

“A guess to satisfy public demand” but wrapped in the prestige of settled science.

What does the Crop Science Society of America really gain from "pushing" that climate change is influenced by human factors to as significant degree? The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics?

Do you think all scientific findings should be ignored because maybe someone somewhere has an economic incentive involved? Do you also believe that 9/11 was a vast conspiracy? That Sandy Hook didn't happen?

Live in your little cocoon of paranoia if you like. Doesn't matter to me.

CSSA is far from pushing. There is a moderate amount of information exchange and goes on rather often but there are no efforts within CSSA or Agronomy Society that comes close you your characterization. Its openly debated and discussed but you won't find anyone bagging on another for divergent views.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

We will all reap what the debate is sowing if it turns out that the "alarmists" are right.

Fun fact...

Did you know that over 97% of all European theologians believe in God? YET only 51% of Europeans do!!! Now these guys STUDY God for a living so they should know right? It's a pretty amazing consensus gap. But let's set aside consensus and focus of PROOF. They may not be able to prove to you how or when God will next act but they certainly can look back to the past and point to clear examples of God's actions. Try as they might, they can't seem to put together a system that will predict God's behavior in the future but they assure me they will be able to someday...so you better start believing NOW. Hey, if it turns out those theologians are right, we better do everything we can to avoid going to hell! I mean, what can it hurt to pray and tithe just in case.

^^^^
This is not how SCIENCE is supposed to work. Yet, this is exactly how the culture of climate alarmism currently works.

Setting aside the climate change discussion, I don't see the problem with the original post and footnote. I think it's pretty common to have to make a "guesstimate" for a number when you'd like to have an estimate and are working with limited data.

Did you know that over 97% of all European theologians believe in God? YET only 51% of Europeans do!!! Now these guys STUDY God for a living so they should know right? It's a pretty amazing consensus gap. But let's set aside consensus and focus of PROOF. They may not be able to prove to you how or when God will next act but they certainly can look back to the past and point to clear examples of God's actions. Try as they might, they can't seem to put together a system that will predict God's behavior in the future but they assure me they will be able to someday...so you better start believing NOW. Hey, if it turns out those theologians are right, we better do everything we can to avoid going to hell! I mean, what can it hurt to pray and tithe just in case.

^^^^
This is not how SCIENCE is supposed to work. Yet, this is exactly how the culture of climate alarmism currently works.

No, that is not at all how they came to the 97% consensus conclusion. That's not even in the same universe of the methodology they used. The consensus number has been calculated from 3 different independent studies, and the studies show the same results.

Here's exactly how that consensus was calculated:

Quote:

The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004). We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary). We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence).

Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below. Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24. We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements.

We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.

Note that John Cook also initiated a spinoff from the project with a survey of climate blog participants re-rating a subset of these same abstracts. However, this spinoff is not a part of our research or conclusions.

The TeamA team of Skeptical Science volunteers proceeded to categorize the 12,000 abstracts – the most comprehensive survey of its kind to date. Each paper was rated independently at least twice, with the identity of the other co-rater not known. A dozen team members completed most of the 24,000+ ratings. There was no funding provided for this project; all the work was performed on a purely voluntary basis.

Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.

The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.

The Self-Ratings
As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

The 97% Consensus ResultsBased on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.

We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.

Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. From Cook et al. (2013).

Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:

In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. This is greater than 97% consensus of peer-reviewed papers because endorsement papers had more authors than rejection papers, on average. Thus there is a 97.1% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, and a 98.4% consensus amongst scientists researching climate change.

Here's why the 97% figure hasn't been debunked on this message board or anywhere else: because it's overwhelmingly supported in the scientific community. It's not a myth, it's not an exaggeration, and it's not the product of bad science. It's easy to see why, generally speaking, it's championed more by liberals (who are traditionally more pro-environment) and opposed by conservatives (who are traditionally more anti-regulation). However, if politics were to be set aside, the scientific consensus is still really there.

To support that, here is NASA, saying that climate change is real, and man-made, including links from numerous other national and international scientific bodies and their own statements of agreement. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

And here is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, saying that "There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause." http://www.climate.gov/news-features...uestions#hide7 (see Section 2: Causes.)

I recognize that the 3% exists, and can produce very convincing articles, even peer-reviewed articles, undeniably claiming the widespread use of faulty data. I recognize that there was a widely-reported segment of the scientific community who predicted global cooling back in the 70's. I recognize that there are environmental and/or liberal fanatics who will inflate these results into predictions of imminent and global Waterworld-style calamities for their own purposes. I also recognize that scientists can make mistakes. I recognize all of these as legitimate arguments, but they pale compared to the top-level science organizations of almost every nation agreeing that global climate change is real, and caused by humans.

Just because scientists aren't interested in marketing, and don't necessarily give a shit whether you believe them or not, doesn't mean that they're somehow wrong. They're a lot more thorough, have investigated a lot more of the opposing studies, and know a lot more about the entire subject than us goofballs do.

A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

These are the words of economist and Global Warming Policy Foundation advisor Richard Tol in a new paper published in Energy Policy. Despite accepting that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real and correct, Tol has nevertheless spent the past year trying to critique the study my colleagues and I published last year, finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

No, that is not at all how they came to the 97% consensus conclusion. That's not even in the same universe of the methodology they used. The consensus number has been calculated from 3 different independent studies, and the studies show the same results.

Here's exactly how that consensus was calculated:

LOL WUT?

NOTHING in my post is attacking the 97% figure. I have stated that it makes perfect sense that if you are asking if there is at least some influence that human activity has on climate that you'd see a very high number among scientists... you'll ALSO see that among the public if it's asked that way. (as proven here in DC when we asked) The 45% figure is the one that should be attacked. It's bogus when used in the same context as the 97% figure.

My theology post was about the methods and "logic" used by climate alarmists to push their agenda. They rely on bullshit like trying to distort "consensus" and fear of what MAY happen instead of what normally passes for PROOF in science.

That is why that post was in response to Amnorix's "better safe than sorry" post.

Here's why the 97% figure hasn't been debunked on this message board or anywhere else: because it's overwhelmingly supported in the scientific community. It's not a myth, it's not an exaggeration, and it's not the product of bad science. It's easy to see why, generally speaking, it's championed more by liberals (who are traditionally more pro-environment) and opposed by conservatives (who are traditionally more anti-regulation). However, if politics were to be set aside, the scientific consensus is still really there.

To support that, here is NASA, saying that climate change is real, and man-made, including links from numerous other national and international scientific bodies and their own statements of agreement. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

And here is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, saying that "There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause." http://www.climate.gov/news-features...uestions#hide7 (see Section 2: Causes.)

I recognize that the 3% exists, and can produce very convincing articles, even peer-reviewed articles, undeniably claiming the widespread use of faulty data. I recognize that there was a widely-reported segment of the scientific community who predicted global cooling back in the 70's. I recognize that there are environmental and/or liberal fanatics who will inflate these results into predictions of imminent and global Waterworld-style calamities for their own purposes. I also recognize that scientists can make mistakes. I recognize all of these as legitimate arguments, but they pale compared to the top-level science organizations of almost every nation agreeing that global climate change is real, and caused by humans.

Just because scientists aren't interested in marketing, and don't necessarily give a shit whether you believe them or not, doesn't mean that they're somehow wrong. They're a lot more thorough, have investigated a lot more of the opposing studies, and know a lot more about the entire subject than us goofballs do.

Yes, the consensus is there... but if you used the same loose conditions when asking the general public... guess what? THE CONSENSUS IS THERE TOO!!! OMGZ!!!! The bullshit that is being debunked is that you can ask two totally different questions to two groups and then try to compare them and claim a "consensus gap."

That Peiser study that the graphic and articles are based on? That author has since retracted his statement. Here's what he said about it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Peiser

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."